Quote:

---

Jewish V For Vendetta movie glorifies terrorism by Bush Crime Family

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/piratenewsrss/message/174

Gunpowder Plot to bomb British Parliament was exactly 400 years ago, perped by Constable Thomas Percy, ancester of Barbara Pierce Bush, mother of George Bush Jr.

VIDEO DOWNLOADS:
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com
(Includes Hangman game to test your knowledge of history of totalitarian dictatorships, and full history of Gunpowder Plot of 1605)

2006 movie gets 2 thumbs up for bombing terrorist Parliament in 2006, though the "British" Government is owned by Khazar AshkeNAZI "Jewish" banksters, and puppeteered by its Shadow Govt proxies, just like USA and every other nation on Earth. So what it's actually doing is glorifying the Bush Gang bombing the World Trade Center with prewired explosives in Controlled Demolitions. A cross between 1984 and 9/11, by the invisible Jewish Wakowski Bros - frontmen for Mishpucka KosherNostra?

Thomas Percy was summarily executed in a gunfight in tights. Co-conspirators was castrated in public, tortured in Tower of London, drawn and quartered, and heads put on spikes. Sort of like Abu Ghraib... Guy Fawkes Day is celebrated every November 5th, sort of a British combination of 4th of July and Halloween.

The Gunpowder Plot
http://parliament.uk/documents/upload/g08.pdf

The Gunpowder Plot Society
www.gunpowder-plot.org

The Gunpowder Plot Game BBC
http://bbc.co.uk/history/games/gunpowder/index.shtml

Interactive Guide: Gunpowder Plot
http://guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1605605,00.html

The Weekly News newspaper - 31 Jan 1606
www.exmsft.com/~davidco/History/fawkes1.htm

www.September911Surprise.com
Bush, third cousin to Jewish German Queen Elizabeth of England, did it for the international "Jewish" banksters... His daddy is Sir George Bush Sr Knight of the BRITISH Empire, that bombed Washington DC and New Orleans in 1776, 1812, 2001 and 2005.

Quote:

---

The Biggest Secret

by David Icke
www.davidicke.com

When you do the genealogy of the American presidents, it's stunning. This information comes from Burke's Peerage, which is the Bible of aristocratic genealogy, based in London. Every presidential election in America, since and including George Washington in 1789 to Bill Clinton, has been won by the candidate with the most British and French royal genes. Of the 42 presidents to Clinton, 33 have been related to two people: Alfred the Great, King of England, and Charlemagne, the most famous monarch of France. So it goes on: 19 of them are related to England's Edward III, who has 2000 blood connections to Prince Charles. The same goes with the banking families in America. George Bush and Barbara Bush are from the same bloodline - the Pierce bloodline (President Franklin Pierce - PNTV ed), which changed its name from Percy, when it crossed the Atlantic. Percy is one of the aristocratic families of Britain, to this day. They were involved in the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament at the time of Guy Fawkes and all that. So, George Bush is related to Charlemagne and Alfred the Great. He is related to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You know, these different bloodlines have taken different names, but they follow the genealogy like crazy. Because they go under different names, people obviously don't see the pattern. If Clinton and the secretary of state were Rockefellers and the main newsreader on NBC was a Rockefeller, then, people would say, excuse me, what's going on here. So, they have different names. That's irrelevant. It's the bloodline that matters. The Bush family is one example, because, over these last three generations, or so, it has carried the same name, and you can actually see the way it works. The idea that anyone can become president of the United States is utter bunkum, and that is a very important statement. That idea is actually one of the foundations of American's belief that they live in a free country. Well, I can tell you that it is absolutely untrue. If you go back two generations, according to the research, you find Prescot Bush, George Bush's father, was involved in various political maneuvers and he was a member of the Skull and Crossbones Society at Yale University. In the next generation, you have George, who was prepared from birth and brought up to hold positions of power, and he went on to become head of the CIA, the Vice President, and, in fact, President for three terms (two of them officially Reagan's). He was head of the Republican Party at the time of the Watergate hearings. He was a U.N. Ambassador and an unofficial ambassador to China. All these were key positions. Now, we are seeing the next generation of the Bush family - the Bush bloodline - with Jeb Bush the Governor of Florida and George W. Bush now being feted as the next President of the United States. So, you can see it over three generations, with the Bushes, but, in these other bloodlines, you can't see it because they have different names. According to Burke's Peerage, even according to the official genealogy, Bill Clinton is genetically related to the House of Windsor, the present royal family in Britain; to every Scottish monarch; to King Henry III of England; and to Robert I of France. I am seeing more and more compelling research information that Clinton is actually a Rockefeller, one generation back, which would explain a tremendous amount about why this so- called kid off the street of Arkansas was given a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University, which only goes to hand-picked people (and why Jew William Jefferson Blythe III, a/k/a President Bill Clinton, vacations with the Bushes and Rockefellers every year at Satanic Bohemian Grove presidential retreat, where they perform mock child sacrifice to their 50-foot-tall stone/concrete idol of Baal/Molech/Satan, as caught on hidden undercover videotape by Alex Jones of Infowars radio, with help from Channel 4 and BBC - PNTV ed). He was put under the tutelage of Carol Quigley, one of the insiders at Georgetown University, who wrote massive tomes about the manipulation of this group in the 20th century, 'Tragedy and Hope' and 'The Anglo-American Establishment,' etc. At a very early age,
Clinton became governor of what everyone seemed to accept as the Rockefeller State of Arkansas. Then, of course, he became the President of the United States.

"President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III."
www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

Burkes Peerage online search of British royal families
www.burkes-peerage.net

FOOTNOTE ON BBC TV HOST DAVID ICKE:

Access Denied for Reasons of National Security

by Cathy O'Brien and Mark Phillips
www.trance-formation.com

"They're not lizards." What about George Bush then?" David Icke asked. You talk about him turning into a lizard in TRANCE." "Not really," I countered. "I said he created an image of turning into a lizard." "TRANCE was written for Congress," Mark Phillips reminded him. "Congress already knows about holographic generators that produce such an image. They already know it's a hoax, regarding the equipment Bush used to perpetuate the illusion." O'Brien added, "I've heard Bush discussing the fact that people respond to snakes and lizards by freezing in fear. It was discussed and decided at Bohemian Grove that this lizard alien theme would render people helpless to do anything about mind control, wars, genocide and everything else leading them to the New World Order. The lizard theme was spread in the military along with Colonel Michael Aquino's Satanism in his Temple of Set."

---

Now for psychology, that don't sound half dumb.
-Jayne

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO (VERSION 2)
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

Quote:

---

he's automatically the bad guy, why, I bet he even gobbles up babies.*shakes head sadly* You know nothing about him aside from what he's told you. By taking the stand that you have against him without information about his real character, you are no better than any conservative, George Bush and Adolf Hitler included. As for whether one of us is more like a Browncoat or a Purplebelly, who cares? Both sides want to help people. Both sides have their pro's and con's. It is possible for the two to agree on somethings though. You spend all your time focusing on the differences, but if you look closer and actually ask Hero, I bet he is as against infringing on the constitution as you are, he just has different reasons why.

---

Quote:

---

I'd take a 'Hero' over a 'Pirate' anyday...in fact I did.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you think the Constitutional Convention created the foundation of our nation by hurling insults and mocking each other? OF COURSE NOT!!!

---

LMAO, Actually it was very much like that, and there was a whole lot of that goin on, I believe a healthy debate on any topic should involve a bit of snarkery and humor, cause otherwise it gets too serious and leads to folks shootin at each other.

---

Quote:

---

Yes they did! Some were gentlemen, but others were serious rabble-rousers. There was name calling, threats were made, fists were pounded against table-tops, inflammatory speeches were made, and on several occasions delegates threatened to walk out.

Political gatherings were WAY more intense in the days before t.v. brought them into everyone's home.

---

Quote:

---

REAVERMAN

Quote:

---

you have no proof at all that George Bush broke any law.

---

Fact - the constitution is, by our law and government system, the highest law of the land.

Fact - the rights within are explicitly laid out, and to change, deny, or modify any of them requires an amendment, with the ratification process requiring three quarters of the states to agree upon it.

These facts are in no more dispute than the sun rising in the east.

Fact - certain members of our government, including, but not limited to the oval office, have signed and passed legislation that effectively denies some of those rights.

This did indeed "break the law", knowingly and with malice aforethought, especially when they chose to renew those acts in spite of them failing the test of constitutional trump.

(One might also mention that it's gross negligence on behalf of any congresscritter to sign a bill they have not read.)

Someone else mentioned "Yeah, that's how it's supposed to be, but that's not how it is", to paraphrase, and sure, reality has taken a different turn than intended, however....

Just because the government chooses to ignore the basis and foundation for it's very existance, does not make it right, or legal, not even one iota - it just makes it the situation of the time, backed up by military and police force, whether it's legal or not.

And don't give me any lines about might makes right either, that philosophy didn't help the roman empire very much, and is unlikely to help ours either.

Learn from history or repeat it's mistakes, and for the last time, explore some of this stuff rather than assuming - there's no excuse at all to not do so as it's easy enough to find, and interesting, entertaining, and informative reading besides.

Y'all should be attackin issues, not each other, that goes for all of ya.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

What you really mean to ask is why did I choose the name?

Perhaps it was a tribute to the legendary 'Hero of Canton'. Perhaps it was because I won a Bronze Star in the First Gulf War. Perhaps because I once pulled a child from in front of a speeding car (drunk driver). Perhaps because I adopted a rescued puppy. Perhaps a love a good sandwhich. Perhaps, perhaps perhaps, and perhaps you and others have a few perhaps of your own. The reason is personal and will remain so.

---

Quote:

---

In the first of the reports, Waas says, Bush was informed in early October 2002 that the *** Energy Department AND the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research *** believed that aluminum tubes Saddam had procured were "intended for conventional weapons." That report contradicted the "aluminum tubes as nuclear threats" story line the administration began using in September 2002, when somebody leaked it to the New York Times' Michael Gordon and Judy Miller. "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts," the Times said then, and administration officials took to the airwaves to chime in. Donald Rumsfeld warned of a nuclear 9/11. Condoleezza Rice said that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs," and she brushed away any sense of uncertainty by insisting that we wouldn't want the "smoking gun" to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Shortly thereafter, Bush himself told the General Assembly of the United Nations that Iraq had "made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." And in his 2003 State of the Union speech, right after uttering the much more famous 16 words about Niger, Bush said: "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

It's hard to know how many Americans were swayed by the faulty aluminum tubes story, but it was all part of the larger argument: Saddam Hussein had to be removed, the president would say, because he's a "gathering threat," a man who could "decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." "If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking differently," Bush said in March 2003..\ "But I see a gathering threat. I mean, this is a true, real threat to America."

Bush may well have thought that, but it wasn't because he wasn't getting contrary views. In January 2003, Waas says, the president was handed a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate. "The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies *** unanimously *** agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if 'ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime' or if he intended to 'extract revenge' for such an assault, according to records and sources." There was one exception, Waas says: The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said Saddam was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland" even if a U.S. invasion threatened his regime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Reaverman:
P.S. As for the torture thing, as far as I know, the constitution doesn't cover foreign citizens, so , if Bush is having prisoners tortured, it is not unconstitutional, and as the prisoners in Gtmo are not soldiers from one nation or another at war with us, they are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

---

Quote:

---

[[]Upon being asked if America is breaking the Geneva Convention[]] In this respect, I would say so, yes. Certainly not observing the terms of internment, for imperative reasons of security. That's quite clear. And I do recall that our office at the appropriate time had shared this view with our colleagues of the U.S. Mission in Baghdad. It is a matter of concern because of the large numbers involved and the duration of the detention. You know, the vast majority [[]he goes on too say 80-90%[]] of these people are innocent and when they are rounded up, by the time that they leave, quite a number of them are no longer as innocent as they were when they entered. Because obviously they are exposed to hardcore people who have a certain degree of violent instinct in them.
John Pace, Head of Human Rights for UNAMI (United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq)

---

Quote:

---

Bush has broken no law whether he tortured prisoners or not.

---

Quote:

---

On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

---

Quote:

---

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ah, but what you don't realize is that when your boys at army threat assessment sent you on this dangerous mission, they began monitoring you. How many times has he watched each episode? Did the fact that he watch the train job or ariel multiple times indicate that he's gone over to the other side?

---

Quote:

---

Truth be told, I don’t trust them any further then I can throw them, but I trust them a lot more then I do anyone else.

---

Quote:

---

But if I may opine briefly and in general, since I really don't have the time to respond to everyone:

Personally, I’m more afraid of the media then I am the government or the corporations. I think of what happened to Dr. David Kelly and it occurs to me that this could so easily have happened to me, if I had been higher up on the chain then I am. It’s the mob that rules, and the media, more then the politicians or the corporations control the mob.

---

Quote:

---

As for Bush, he didn’t lie about WMDs in Iraq. That’s a figment of imagination.

---

Quote:

---

It is not a fact that Saddam had no WMDs. It is a fact that Saddam had WMD’s prior to the invasion (he used them against his own people and the Iranians). It’s also a fact that we can’t seem to find them today. However, neither of these statements means that they weren’t there at the time of the invasion or not there now, just that we can’t find them. Even as late as 2003, Hans Blix (no friend of the US or the war) listed before the UN Security Council tons of Biological and Chemical weapons and precursors that UN weapon’s inspectors could not account for as late as 1999, when Saddam refused further inspections.

---

Quote:

---

It’s not a fact that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US at the time of the invasion. It is a fact that Saddam may have likely conspired in a failed attempt to assassinate a former US president, and if Saddam had the aforementioned WMDs, a proposition that cannot be dismissed, then he could have pass these on to terrorist agents that may have then used them against the US. So the imminence of Saddam’s threat to the US was an unknown quantity. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US really comes down to how much trust you want to put in Hussein.

---

Quote:

---

As for the legality of the invasion, what does that even mean?

---

Quote:

---

I don’t think that the Coalition invasion was illegal.

---

Quote:

---

Saddam posed a possible threat to US national security.

---

Quote:

---

Saddam violated the 1991 Gulf War cease fire agreement. Saddam refused to comply with UN Chapter 7 Resolutions.

---

Quote:

---

All of which, as far as I’m concerned, are legal justifications for the war.

---

Quote:

---

But in the end, if you think that the US violated the law when it invaded Iraq in 2003, then take us to court, prove it and throw us in jail. Ah, but you can’t do that, can you? Because international law doesn’t work that way, as Saddam Hussein demonstrated for 10 solid years when the UN balked Chapter 7 Resolution after Chapter 7 Resolution, while Hussein laughed in their faces and killed 1.5 million innocent Iraqi in order to insulate himself from these pointless resolution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
What happened to David Kelly?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
People should try not to use spin.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn:

That’s funny coming from you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We have set the example: "Kill everyone, steal everything, death torture maim kill. All hail limitless executive power. Drug trade is profitable, torture is fun, everyone grab a nuke." This is the new standard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverman:
Hmm... yep, definitely arguing only facts there. Why, I see attack after attack after attack on Hero's character. Yep, you're practically a wellspring of logical discourse.

---

Quote:

---

We must stop creating the monsters we later feel we must destroy, lest we become that which we create.
And lies make it all possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:



It’s not a fact that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US at the time of the invasion. It is a fact that Saddam may have likely conspired in a failed attempt to assassinate a former US president, and if Saddam had the aforementioned WMDs, a proposition that cannot be dismissed, then he could have pass these on to terrorist agents that may have then used them against the US.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I actually agree with Fletch.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, please...by that reasoning, we should pre-emptivly strike at Korea, Iran, China, etc.
I recently heard that the 'phantom' WMD's, as I called them, were moved into Syria just before our invasion if Iraq, what little there were. This would blow a big hole in my "Bush lied about WMD's" routine, but it also changes very little else. I mean we have our own WMD's, and could be seen as an imminent threat to Saddam, so why didn't he pre-emptivly attack us? (911 was not Saddam, in case you were gonna cite that)

Why am I not allowed by law to punch someone who I believe is gonna hit me in the next few days?

Pre-emptive Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:


So to get to your analogy: it’s the equivalent to enforcing laws against murder with a stern rebuke, instead of jail.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We don’t have the resources to engage every country that is a threat to the US, and war is a limited solution anyway, but I do agree that the real final solution needs more, much more, then the US/UK can provide. This is a job for the UN and the world as a whole, but they don’t seem interested. There’s no doubt that the Iranians and the North Koreans and the Chinese view the US and the UK as some kind of threat. And there’s no doubt that this isn’t a perfect solution. But advocating to our adversaries the serious intent to defend our national security and that of our allies with credible military strength and a willingness to pre-emptive response when deemed necassary has been successfully used as a deterrent for most of military history. But there is a limit to how much credibility the US and the UK can offer the UN, if the UN will not take measures to enforce its own laws.

This is not anything new; this is the way sovereignty has been secured for 5000 years. I was once lulled into the wishful fantasy that the UN changed things, but I could no longer continue to believe that after the UN issued 16 enforceable Resolutions against Iraq that no one had any interest in enforcing, because of a culture of complacency and what historians are referring to as "Olympianism," and as it now appears leading UN member states had been effectively bought off by Hussein. As a result, there are people who believe (Bush and Blair, among them) that the UN is essentially irrelevant as a world leader without the US and UK to legitimize its authority with credible military force; and I find it hard to disagree with them. No country will follow a world leader who is paralyzed with indecision, and incapable of securing its own laws, and if the UN (and its subsidiaries, such as the World Court) is to become this World Leader it will need more then just pieces of paper stamped with “UN Resolution.” I still believe that the UN can become an international arbiter of peace, but it was naïve of me to believe that it could ever have done so without credible military force behind it.

So to get to your analogy: it’s the equivalent to enforcing laws against murder with a stern rebuke, instead of jail. If you lived in a world where laws against murder were not enforced, then you might be inclined to punch someone, maybe even kill them, if you had reason to believe they might do the same to you or your family in a few days.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
two of the main members of the UN don't follow the laws.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
But does our sovereignty deserve to be protected?

CitizenIsAdama

---

Quote:

---

final solution

---